what do you think about the "split timeline"

[Infern0]

I do find it strange when people say things like "this way the harcore get to keep the original timeline"

eh?

Like if they had just done a straight reboot I wouldn't get to "keep" the original 10 films and 500 episodes?

I don't need to be thrown a bone by Mr Abrahms to "keep" the original Star Trek, it is and always will BE.

That Star Trek, the original timeline lasted a long long time and leaves it's own legacy. If this new version leaves half the mark it'll be very lucky indeed.

Sorry, just grinds my gears.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Does it really hurt anyone, though, especially now with Star Trek XII? Is it really something to get very angry about?

 

[Pavonis]

Alternate timelines and universes are nothing new in Trek.

Exactly, and had the movie been a clean reboot, everyone would have just written it off as an alternate timeline anyway.

Then there would have been questions as to when the timelines split anyway. People have been trying to figure out when the "Mirror, Mirror" universe timeline split. I don't think it is possible to depict an alternate timeline without people asking when the split occurred. At least ST'09 depicted the divergence point.

I'm all for following the characters in alt-timelines. Kirk is still Kirk, McCoy is still McCoy. What difference does it make what timeline is followed? For instance, if in the episode "Parallels", Worf had been stranded in a different timeline/"parallel quantum universe", would fans have stopped watching because Picard et al. weren't "really" there anymore?

 

[The Wormhole]

Alternate timelines and universes are nothing new in Trek.

Exactly, and had the movie been a clean reboot, everyone would have just written it off as an alternate timeline anyway.

Then there would have been questions as to when the timelines split anyway. People have been trying to figure out when the "Mirror, Mirror" universe timeline split. I don't think it is possible to depict an alternate timeline without people asking when the split occurred. At least ST'09 depicted the divergence point.

Is knowing the divergence point really necessary? And besides, even with the supposed point of divergence being 2233 and everything prior supposed to be the same in both universes is becoming increasingly inconsistent anyway. Seriously, at this point, especially with IDW's comics which are under Orci's direct supervision (and occasionally even co-written by him) it seems as though the Abrams timeline was always different anyway.

Yes, if they had gone a clean reboot that would be a constant question among everyone. But we Trek fans always have those. And besides, go to the Trek XI forum and take a look at how many "why don't Voyager's timecops fix the timelines?" threads we've had since 2009.

And there is no point of divergence with the MU. They'e always been evil. According to Enterprise's opening credits, Earth spins in the opposite direction over there!

 

[C.E. Evans]

Exactly, and had the movie been a clean reboot, everyone would have just written it off as an alternate timeline anyway.

Then there would have been questions as to when the timelines split anyway. People have been trying to figure out when the "Mirror, Mirror" universe timeline split. I don't think it is possible to depict an alternate timeline without people asking when the split occurred. At least ST'09 depicted the divergence point.

Is knowing the divergence point really necessary?

Technically, it wasn't necessary to split the timeline at all, but it was a creative decision to do so and they followed through with it.

 

[Jaro Stun]

Honestly, it is a cheat. It is a cheat how to avoid canon/continuity difficulties, instead of embracing the legacy and continuing the saga story in the future.

It is a cheat allowing to remake Star Trek into Star Wars, as JJ so many times basically implied. The "this is new timeline" justifies about any bastardization of Star Trek that comes into TPTB heads.

I like the new movie (still about to see the 2nd one) on its own merits (as nicely looking fun sci fi romp), but I do not consider it a continuation of Star Trek legacy, instead a dumbed down summer entertainment for masses of teenagers.

 

[The Wormhole]

Honestly, it is a cheat. It is a cheat how to avoid canon/continuity difficulties, instead of embracing the legacy and continuing the saga story in the future.

In all honesty, any new Trek production would have had to go for a "fresh approach" angle. Either by rebooting continuity or advancing things say to the 25th century and starting with a nearly blank slate. Advancing things 100 years is what was done in the 80s with TNG. A reboot seemed logical to attempt this time. You know, new ground and all that fun stuff.

 

[Belz...]

Personally I've just decided that the old timeline has been erased by the Narada. I don't like multiple timelines at once. Personal decision, mind you, but I have a "theory" about that (look for my thread in this section).

 

[The Wormhole]

Personally I've just decided that the old timeline has been erased by the Narada. I don't like multiple timelines at once. Personal decision, mind you, but I have a "theory" about that (look for my thread in this section).

Supposedly, early drafts of the script had the entire Prime universe wiped out by the galaxy spanning supernova. Paramount overruled and said that was taking things too far, and so only Romulus got destroyed.

 

[sbk1234]

And people griped when it was only Spock who died back in TWOK!

 

[Belz...]

Supposedly, early drafts of the script had the entire Prime universe wiped out by the galaxy spanning supernova. Paramount overruled and said that was taking things too far, and so only Romulus got destroyed.

I'd like to see a source for that, but it's very interesting.

I like the way they did the reboot, but it should just have wiped out the previous timeline and that's it. I agree that they are maintaining too much link to the original, which may just mean that Trek is running on fumes, right now, and that is very very worrying.

 

[The Wormhole]

Supposedly, early drafts of the script had the entire Prime universe wiped out by the galaxy spanning supernova. Paramount overruled and said that was taking things too far, and so only Romulus got destroyed.

I'd like to see a source for that, but it's very interesting.

I like the way they did the reboot, but it should just have wiped out the previous timeline and that's it. I agree that they are maintaining too much link to the original, which may just mean that Trek is running on fumes, right now, and that is very very worrying.

Here we are.

 

[Pavonis]

I agree that they are maintaining too much link to the original, which may just mean that Trek is running on fumes, right now, and that is very very worrying.

In what world do you live that the creativity, or lack thereof, in Trek is something that you can consider "very very worrying"? It wouldn't be the end of the world if live action Trek weren't being produced, would it?

 

[Belz...]

I agree that they are maintaining too much link to the original, which may just mean that Trek is running on fumes, right now, and that is very very worrying.

In what world do you live that the creativity, or lack thereof, in Trek is something that you can consider "very very worrying"? It wouldn't be the end of the world if live action Trek weren't being produced, would it?

Er... worrying for Star Trek, mate. Geez, talk about misunderstanding.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Trek has an incredibly rich mythology. I don't see the new films using it to be in any way "worrying". I say it's about damn time!

 

[Belz...]

My point is that they seem to be using references to old Trek as a crutch, but I think that the 'new' Trek needs to make its own mythology. I don't mind that they make those references, but I'm worried that they have no clue where to go with this reboot.

 

[Pavonis]

I agree that they are maintaining too much link to the original, which may just mean that Trek is running on fumes, right now, and that is very very worrying.

In what world do you live that the creativity, or lack thereof, in Trek is something that you can consider "very very worrying"? It wouldn't be the end of the world if live action Trek weren't being produced, would it?

Er... worrying for Star Trek, mate. Geez, talk about misunderstanding.

Still don't see it. Are you saying that you are worried on behalf of the Trek producers because you think they're not creative enough, or are you saying that you're just very, very worried about the Trek franchise (and would simply tack more "very"s in front of something that the rest of the world would really think is worth worrying about)?

 

[Belz...]

The latter. I think that rebooting a franchise indicates that you're going to do something new, not tread on old ground. Re-using old villains and stories and references is good to a point, but I'm worried (just worried yet) that this is the only thing Trek has left. I was expecting Into Darkness to have less references to old Trek than '09, which was understandable, but in fact it had almost as many, which raises the question: can they still make new stuff ? If, if so, when ?

 

[Anji]

My point is that they seem to be using references to old Trek as a crutch, but I think that the 'new' Trek needs to make its own mythology. I don't mind that they make those references, but I'm worried that they have no clue where to go with this reboot.

Yep, you're right, they're clueless.

And on the alternate timeline thing: all I know if I would've pulled something like that in my high school creative writing class my teacher would've failed me instantly.

 

[Belz...]

Yep, you're right, they're clueless.

Where did I say that ?